1
$\begingroup$

The idea is to give an Flow Network in which the minimum cut goes through a lot of edges. So adding one unit to each edge will change the min cut. The following figure, as a counter example, shows a ow network, which has a min-cut of value 3 which goes through 3 edges, but after increasing each edge by one unit, the min-cut changes to a cut of value 4 which goes through 1 edge.

enter image description here

i ran into a problem, i think, if we have a graph that each of edge weights is integer and bigger than 1, and increase by 1, the min cut (s,t) in two graph remain same. anyone could give me a counter example for such graph?

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Are you looking for an example of a graph that each edge weight is an integer bigger than 1, and increasing the weight of each edge by 1 would increase the min-cut value? Or that increasing by 1 wouldn't increase the min-cut value? Also, in the example after the change, unless I am missing something, the min-cut value is 5, not 4. $\endgroup$ Oct 7, 2014 at 13:52
  • $\begingroup$ Ahhah. I get the question now. $\endgroup$ Oct 7, 2014 at 17:11

1 Answer 1

0
+50
$\begingroup$

Theorem: Increasing by 1 each weight of each edge in a graph increases the min-cut value.

Proof:

We mark by $P_i$ the total weight of the $i$th path, which cutting it from the graph will disconnect $s$ from $t$, and by $n_i$ the total number of edges in it. We obviously know that $P_i, n_i$ are positive integers for all $i$'s.

Let $i=1$ be the path of least weight in $G$. We thus have $P_1\le P_i, \forall i$. We increase the weight of each edge by 1 and define the new graph as $G'$. In $G'$, $P'_i=P_i+n_i$. Thus if increasing the weight wouldn't have increased the min-cut value, we would have $P'_i\le P_1$, so $P_1\ge P_i+n_i$, contradicting the fact that $P_1\le P_i,\forall i$.


As to the location of the min-cut, it can remain the same or change. Using your graph I will give an example where all the edges are of weight strictly bigger than one and it changes, and one where it doesn't.

Here adding one to all adges will change the location from the three edges to the single-edge:enter image description here

While here it will remain at the single-edge:

enter image description here

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ @DaviedZuhraph I'm sorry, I meant your example was an example of change in location, obviously. I've added an example where the location doesn't change, using your own graph and changing the numbers. $\endgroup$ Oct 7, 2014 at 20:49
  • $\begingroup$ Ahah. Editing now. $\endgroup$ Oct 7, 2014 at 21:05
  • $\begingroup$ Note that you can find an example of a change in location as long as the current min-cut has more edges in it than another possible min-cut. From there it is just a play with the numbers. $\endgroup$ Oct 7, 2014 at 21:16

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .